If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Chemistry is the least of my worries with the starters no matter who is starting between Granger and Stephenson, and should be the least of anyone's worries. People raved about the chemistry this team had in 11-12 just liked they raved about it in 12-13. Chemistry is not and will not be an issue with any of the starters.

Yep, there was a stretch in the Bulls game where Granger hit some shots and had a beautiful drive and kickout to PG for three and I was thinking "This is it, Danny's the starter." Then Lance came in for Danny and had back to back "Gump" fast breaks and I thought "OH GOD WHO CARES WHO STARTS THIS IS AWESOME"

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Yep, there was a stretch in the Bulls game where Granger hit some shots and had a beautiful drive and kickout to PG for three and I was thinking "This is it, Danny's the starter." Then Lance came in for Danny and had back to back "Gump" fast breaks and I thought "OH GOD WHO CARES WHO STARTS THIS IS AWESOME"

i think this is where I'm at right now. For example, I don't see any advantage for consistency's sake because the other four starters are extremely familiar with both Lance and Danny. Just throw one of them out there any game you want and let's get this thing started.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

I'm going to repeat what I've been saying for a while the only reason the Pacers are starting Danny is because he makes 14mil and also because he keeps repeating that he wants to be the starter and they probably don't want to make him unhappy.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

I'm going to repeat what I've been saying for a while the only reason the Pacers are starting Danny is because he makes 14mil and also because he keeps repeating that he wants to be the starter and they probably don't want to make him unhappy.

That's similar to what Iverson said many times and people destroyed him.

More of what Granger said:

“And Lance, he’s more of a playmaker. So when he’s in the second group, I think he actually excels more. He has the ball in his hands, he can make plays. When he’s with the starting group, the ball’s going into the post or Paul [George] has it. I play off the ball a lot.

I disagree with DG, I think Lance excelled plenty well last year with the starters. I agree with you though, vnzla. It's obvious that Danny is petitioning to start in a not-so-subtle manner. I prefer Lance's team first quotes when he's asked about it.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

I'm going to repeat what I've been saying for a while the only reason the Pacers are starting Danny is because he makes 14mil and also because he keeps repeating that he wants to be the starter and they probably don't want to make him unhappy.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

“And Lance, he’s more of a playmaker. So when he’s in the second group, I think he actually excels more. He has the ball in his hands, he can make plays. When he’s with the starting group, the ball’s going into the post or Paul [George] has it. I play off the ball a lot.

I disagree with DG, I think Lance excelled plenty well last year with the starters. I agree with you though, vnzla. It's obvious that Danny is petitioning to start in a not-so-subtle manner. I prefer Lance's team first quotes when he's asked about it.

Lance played very well as the 5th option last year but the truth is that he is way better when he has the ball in his hands. Lance is also a better playmaker than Danny. On the other hand, Danny is a much better off ball player mainly due to his superior shooting.

I was thinking about starting a thread and comparing the pros and cons of having Lance (or Danny) starting, actually.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Lance played very well as the 5th option last year but the truth is that he is way better when he has the ball in his hands. Lance is also a better playmaker than Danny. On the other hand, Danny is a much better off ball player mainly due to his superior shooting.

I was thinking about starting a thread and comparing the pros and cons of having Lance (or Danny) starting, actually.

First off, your thread idea is exceptional. I would go one step further. I would also do the pros and cons of each player in the second unit. I would not be surprised if the results showed that each player has decent value, although used differently, regardless of which lineup they are in.

So many on here, particularly those in the Lance camp, state that Lance is so much more dangerous offensively when the ball is in his hands and he can create. It is also stated that the ball shouldn't be in Danny's hands because bad things sometimes happen if he attempts to create. It is often stated that Danny is one dimensional and only plays well when he limits himself to the role of a shooter.

I suppose Granger is lobbying with his statement. But I would ask, is he really stating anything that is not an obvious truth? I don't think so, especially since those in the Lance camp have stated essentially the same thing regarding observations about each player's offensive value in the starting lineup.

Please proceed with your thread idea. It may help resolve all the differences. Or, I suppose that it could serve as a catalyst for the "remainder of hell" to break loose.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

“And Lance, he’s more of a playmaker. So when he’s in the second group, I think he actually excels more. He has the ball in his hands, he can make plays. When he’s with the starting group, the ball’s going into the post or Paul [George] has it. I play off the ball a lot.

I disagree with DG, I think Lance excelled plenty well last year with the starters. I agree with you though, vnzla. It's obvious that Danny is petitioning to start in a not-so-subtle manner. I prefer Lance's team first quotes when he's asked about it.

I don't understand your thoughts here. Danny never said Lance didn't excel last year, he said "excel more". So you are disagreeing with something that was never said.

I don't really think either Lance's are Danny's are fundamentally different. The difference being Lance just gave a straight forward politically correct response, which is probably for the best as Lance hasn't shown the ability to be a good public speaker yet, and Danny made a logical argument, that 90% of people on here actually agree with, as to what he thinks is best to the team. Don't get caught up in your predefined opinion of how all NBA players think that you miss what is actually being said. Just because he is arguing for him to start does not mean it is out of selfishness.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

I mean this is basketball 101 ****, and for anyone to argue it is kind of ridiculous. Which is better off the ball, a deadeye shooter? Or a guy who's only offensive contribution has been fastbreaks?? Danny and Lance's game can't be farther apart. Pretty hilarious it has gotten to the beat that Lance is now "teamfirst" and Granger isn't because Granger is talking about a simple concept we all learned in middle school. Shooters spread the court.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

No one thinks for a moment that Granger might be really excited, that for the first time in his career he gets to just sit in the corner and wait for open looks? Instead of forcing bad shots against a defense focused on him??? Danny finally gets the role he was made for and because he played a role he was never meant for his entire career, you want to hold it against him.

ok.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Lance isn't a shooter. The starting lineup clearly needs a shooter. The bench could probably use someone who can create off the dribble, and run the break.

And I don't think Danny has to petition to start. I think if he's healthy, it's obvious to most of us who should start. (For basketball reasons and for experience reasons.) It's much better to have a ball handler come off the bench than a 3/4 who plays off the ball.

The Following User Says Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

There's not going to be many open looks and easy baskets when the guards and SF are better turning the ball over than passing it. That's just the fact. George, Paul and Danny are all good players but none are strong play makers. We do need better shooting, but we also need better passing. Forget the past with Granger and look at who can help our players get better looks. Then you have Paul George having to chase around the SG instead of playing safety in the middle escorting guys right into Hibbert. Ask yourself for a moment why our defense was so good with Lance in the starting unit.

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

There's not going to be many open looks and easy baskets when the guards and SF are better turning the ball over than passing it. That's just the fact. George, Paul and Danny are all good players but none are strong play makers. We do need better shooting, but we also need better passing. Forget the past with Granger and look at who can help our players get better looks. Then you have Paul George having to chase around the SG instead of playing safety in the middle escorting guys right into Hibbert. Ask yourself for a moment why our defense was so good with Lance in the starting unit.

Again, nearly everything you said is simply false.

George Hill isn't Chris Paul, but he's a fine play maker averaging 5 assists and NEVER turning the ball over. Hill doesn't turn the ball over. Neither does Granger. PG will have the ball in his hands no matter what. Are you suggesting the Pacers need to CHANGE the offense and not have the ball in PG's hands??? Then argue that-

This mythical idea that SF's play closer to the basket is absurd. Please name me 1 SF in the NBA that plays closer to the basket so PG can play safety in the middle?

What about all the top SF's that PG has to defend?? LBJ, Durant, 'Melo, Gay, etc, he's playing safety when he defends those players?? Or is he following them all over the court???

Or what about when he's defending James Harden, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade??

Your argument depends on the belief that when playing SF, PG defends EVERY SF opponent. FALSE. He defends the best wing player no matter if he's at the 2 or the 3. Your argument depends on the belief that when PG IS playing the SF position, he is playing closer to the basket and then playing "safety." False. None of that is happening.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! You make your argument that sounds good except for the part that you completely ignore reality!

Last edited by mattie; 10-20-2013 at 04:52 PM.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

As I've stated in the past, the crowd that believes Lance is the best starter, has a beautiful fantasy imagining Lance slashing, hitting open players and creating points.

The problem is, that isn't how our offense works. At all. Lance hasn't done that nor will he as a starter. Just like last season, he'll play off the ball sitting in the corner with his thumb up his ***.

It's a beautiful fantasy, but it is just that, fantasy.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Then you have Paul George having to chase around the SG instead of playing safety in the middle escorting guys right into Hibbert.

I mean. Wow. Just look at that quote all by its self. I wish I knew someone that could ask Vogel that very question. I'd love to see Vogel's confused face when someone suggested the defense works because PG plays "Safety in the middle." Vogel's response would be something along the lines of "whaaaat?"

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Again, nearly everything you said is simply false.
George Hill isn't Chris Paul, but he's a fine play maker averaging 5 assists and NEVER turning the ball over. Hill doesn't turn the ball over. Neither does Granger. PG will have the ball in his hands no matter what. Are you suggesting the Pacers need to CHANGE the offense and not have the ball in PG's hands??? Then argue that-

Paul is a turnover waiting to happen and I disagree on Granger. Granger has a poor assist to turnover ratio. Yes, George Hill is ok and protects the ball. But protecting the ball isn't helping guys get better looks. George is just ok in the assist department and "ok" isn't going to cut it.

I guess it could be a myth, but they are normally bigger players and many have a power/post up game. Like Melo. He is going to be in the paint a lot. But sure, they play a lot on the perimeter too. I just don't think they use quickness to the same extent as they do their length or power game. That means that Paul could far more easily cheat off his man. JMHO.

Your argument depends on the belief that when playing SF, PG defends EVERY SF opponent. FALSE. He defends the best wing player no matter if he's at the 2 or the 3. Your argument depends on the belief that when PG IS playing the SF position, he is playing closer to the basket and then playing "safety." False. None of that is happening.

No it doesn't. Paul will normally guard the bigger player and Lance the smaller with some rare exceptions. That will normally be the SF. Notice that Lance guarded DWade and JR. Smith in the playoffs...and Paul guarded LeBron and Melo. Against Melo, I think he can play some safety. Against LeBron, no, I don't think anyone can play safety. But normally it will hold true. If Lance is on the floor, he will guard the smaller guy normally the PG. With Granger on the floor, Paul will almost certainly be guarding the quicker player...more often the SG, especially after Granger's knee injury. Granger can use his strength against Melo and LeBron but he'd have no chance against Wade and JR Smith. Making sense yet?

Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

Paul is a turnover waiting to happen and I disagree on Granger. Granger has a poor assist to turnover ratio. Yes, George Hill is ok and protects the ball. But protecting the ball isn't helping guys get better looks. George is just ok in the assist department and "ok" isn't going to cut it.

Hill is 7th in the league in Assist/TO ratio. So. Better than nearly everyone else.

Again. Granger doesn't turn the ball over ever. He plays off the ball. You don't need to be a good passer if you're playing off the ball. Are you suggesting the only way the offense can work if ball dominant wings play and they all have high assist ratios? Or maybe it has one ball dominant guy with everyone else playing OFF the ball?

I guess it could be a myth, but they are normally bigger players and many have a power/post up game. Like Melo. He is going to be in the paint a lot. But sure, they play a lot on the perimeter too. I just don't think they use quickness to the same extent as they do their length or power game. That means that Paul could far more easily cheat off his man. JMHO.

Soooo When PG defends 'Melo he's playing "safety"??

No it doesn't. Paul will normally guard the bigger player and Lance the smaller with some rare exceptions. That will normally be the SF. Notice that Lance guarded DWade and JR. Smith in the playoffs...and Paul guarded LeBron and Melo. Against Melo, I think he can play some safety. Against LeBron, no, I don't think anyone can play safety. But normally it will hold true. If Lance is on the floor, he will guard the smaller guy normally the PG. With Granger on the floor, Paul will almost certainly be guarding the quicker player...more often the SG, especially after Granger's knee injury. Granger can use his strength against Melo and LeBron but he'd have no chance against Wade and JR Smith. Making sense yet?

Ok. I saw the trend of PG defending the best wing player, not the biggest. I even gave examples of the 2 guards PG had to defend while Lance was on the court.

Can you give me an example of when Lance defended the better player and PG defended the bigger player???

Also, Granger defended Wade a lot last time Granger and PG were on the court together against the champs...

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%